Skip my technical buffoonery by skipping to 11:26
This video is a recording of Mick and I's livestream discussion after I retracted the Video Titled "The FLIR1 video is NOT debunked - video example of advanced dynamic maneuvering." But after subscriber comments I realized I needed to seriously consider his case and found his math to be correct based on the FOV size information in the SCU report. It hurts to change and retract my views but if we can't change our minds when presented with valid evidence we won't get to the truth. And the truth unfortunately often hurts hah. Sorry for the technical issues at the beginning that was on my end. Mick ran a great stream. I am disappointed for missing twice, I was behind timeline and overconfident that my view as obviously correct. His points really did clear a lot of questions in my mind though. I thought it was very helpful and do believe that is a solid TV image of the Tic-Tac. Maybe the haze is that wavyness LCDR Slaight was talking about?
Thanks for reading!
Please like and subscribe for more content.
✈Join the community and support the channel on Patreon!
https://www.patreon.com/chrislehtoRegards,
Chris
0:00 Chris' computer fail
11:26 Start of FLIR1 acceleration discussion
16:25 Field of View differences and effects
24:01 Chris' results matched Mick's
26:00 First TV discussion of Tic Tac
29:44 Mick's argument FLIR1 is glare
37:10 Mick's gimbal question-mechanical or digital
44:02 Mick's idea of what it is
52:13 Mick argues Gimbal/glare combo is seen in FLIR1
58:30 Is it an F-18?
1:04:03 TIC- TAC TV video discussion
1:11:29 Start of Gimbal discussion
1:16:36 Mick's Gimbal argument
1:24:00 How far away is Gimbal?
1:36:00 Conclusion
Sign in to UFO Slice
